On Wednesday, December 11, 2013, Michigan's state legislature voted in favor of a bill which prohibited insurance providers to be held responsible for covering abortions. If a woman wants her abortions covered by her insurance, she must pay an extra fee unless the woman's life is in danger. Contrary to popular opinion, I find this to be an extremely fair bill. Now, before I am haggled for not being an advocate of women's rights, let me explain. This is not a matter of whether the woman has rights to her own body or the fact that this bill is being decided by a predominantly male legislature. This is about using personal freedom as an excuse to rid an inconvenience. Opponents to this legislation yell that it is absurd because the bill requires women to plan on being raped; Meghan Groen, a Planned Parenthood representative, commented that this is unfair because women don't plan on being raped. Also Gretchen Whitmer, a seat holder in the Michigan Senate said, "(the bill) tells women who are raped ... that they should have thought ahead and bought special insurance for it." In response: without this bill, insurance carriers are telling pro-life men and women that they automatically must pay for and plan on having abortions. Furthermore, Gretchen Whitmer reflected on her experience from being raped and how, if she had become pregnant, this bill would have forced her to fully fund her own abortion. She was not impregnated and in response, abortion is an unnatural, proven unhealthy choice which is not the responsibility of anyone else's monetary funds. According to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, only 1% of all abortions are recorded as a product of rape - that leaves 99% of abortions resulting from non-victim. Pro-choice advocates are no longer satisfied with legalized abortions - they want others to fully fund the abortion procedures. Remember, this bill does not restrict women from having abortions, it simply does not require insurance companies to fully cover them. Personally, I know what it feels like to be taken advantage of and it cannot be an umbrella excuse to destroy an innocent, beautiful life.
President Obama made a statement on Saturday, December 7th, that ". . . a comprehensive diplomatic deal to end Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is as likely to fail as succeed." Well, that doesn't necessarily sound like good foreign policy as much as a political move. To a political extreme, Obama may actually mean, "Let's try to cut a deal with Iran so when inevitable war breaks out we can just blame it on the war mongering Republican party who was not in favor of the deal since its origins." If Iran happens to abide by the deal, the Democratic party will look like they accomplished something in favor of Israel and foreign diplomacy. Reports came in that the deal would freeze Iran's nuclear program; the deal doesn't even completely end Iran's uranium activity, it simply puts a cap on what they are "allowed" to enrich. In the past, Iran has not typically been willing to abide by a Western deal in favor of Israel and the United States. Let's not look past the fact that the only reason Iran has "agreed" to this deal is because of its promised sanctions relief - a legal, political bribe. How long can the United Nations keep paying out Iran until the Iranian government decides they want more money than the U.N will be willing to hand out? Also, with the obvious condemnation from Israel, is it acceptable for the United Nations to pay sanctions to a country with only approval from six nations, none of which will be most significantly effected by the deal as Israel? This deal is being made with the face of the United States but, with President Obama's support, it is ultimately being decided through the United Nations. This deal has seemingly left the public with more questions than answers and more doubt on the competence of our foreign relations and diplomacy.
Thank you for taking the time to read my posts; your opinions and feedback are appreciated.